User talk:Jerome Kohl

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for the many contributions to Carlos Chávez's work. Housewatcher (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! It is always gratifying to know that one's efforts are appreciated by other editors.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Enharmonics different notes??

Enharmonic notes represent the same key on a piano. But are they different on some other instruments (e.g. the violin)?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Enharmonics only represent the same key on a piano under certain conditions—in twelve-tone equal temperament, for example. It is entirely possible to tune a piano differently and, as you say, other instruments may be more flexible. However, even if the vibrating frequency and perceived pitch level are the same, the notes are still different, not only because they are written in different positions on the staff, but also because they belong to different contexts. This context is in fact explained in the article F (musical note), directly after the sentence describing E♯ as the enharmonic equivalent. Without that cautionary remark, however, many readers will assume there is a contradiction. It is sometimes amazing what massive assumptions we make without any supporting cause. The frequencies given in the table in that article is a case in point. F₄ is stated to be 349.228 Hz, as if Moses had brought this down from the mountain carved on his stone tablets. In fact, this frequency is completely arbitary, though I imagine if I did the requisite calculations it would turn out to be an equal-tempered major third below A = 440 Hz.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean there are some pianos without "12-tone equal temperament"?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps some electronic pianos come with 12-equal permanently installed, but the old-fashioned kind must be tuned periodically, and the system used is entirely up to the piano tuner. Most piano tuners know better than to set 12-equal throughout the range of the instrument (the amateur who carefully tunes a piano with an electronic tuning device is often dismayed by the result). Some tuners use systems that subtly deviate from the 12-equal division of the octave, and have claimed that their clients, ignorant of what they have actually done, praise them for being more dependable than their colleague tuners. However, I think what you mean to ask is whether a piano might be tuned to, say, Werkmeister III, or the white keys in pelog and the black keys in slendro. Of course it can and, depending on how you care to assign the pitches, the E keys may be tuned as E♯, with the F keys remaining F. In this case, not only would the frequencies and pitches be different, but so would the notes. Historically, some keyboards have split sharps, with 19 or even 22 notes per octave, in order to accommodate such differences in pitch.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I don't know if you are interested in getting involved in this or not, but you may like to look at the "Avant-garde" list found at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded. It's fairly disappointing, and I have stated that at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded. Perhaps you may like to suggest further names for inclusion.—Toccata quarta (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't believe that there have ever been any "avant garde" persons (so I would be more inclined to remove than add names to such a list), but my attempts to link to it have sent my browser into a permanent coma. It must be a very large file.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is, more than anything else, the underrepresentation of composers from the past century in the list. Webern's absence is rather alarming. Anyway, I will try to persuade them.—Toccata quarta (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Was Webern an avant-garde composer?| He has never struck me that way, but if there are sources that say he is, then so be it. This is of course the usual situation on Wikipedia: verifiability, not truth. If you have not already done so, you may care to look at the lists of "modernist" and "postmodernist" composers. You will find a number of the same names on both lists, because reliable sources have labeled them both ways. The problem with terms like "avant garde", "modernist", and "postmodernist" is that they refer to attitudes, not musical styles, and determining what a composer thought is a lot more difficult than analysing his scores. Furthermore, as has been pointed out in the case of John Cage, a composer's philosophical attitudes (insofar as they can be determined at all) are usually a lot more complicated than the pigeonholes that have been prepared for them. As Walt Whitman said, in shrugging off accusations of self-contradiction, "I am large, I encompass multitudes".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the accuracy of such categorisations, but noting that a composer whom many consider the most important composer of the past century is not on Wikipedia's list of "vital articles". I consider that a grave mistake, which should be amended. See my post on the talk page for confirmation of that.—Toccata quarta (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware of this Wikipedia list of vital articles. I can't find it by searching in the usual way. Can you point me to it, preferably with a link?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's found at the start of this conversation.—Toccata quarta (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right, the link that keeps crashing my browser. I have now tried it from a different computer, and finally have been able to see it. What a mess. I can see why you might be unhappy with it, but I still don't see why Webern ought to be classed as "avant garde", since Schoenberg, Bartók, and Stravinsky are not so pigeonholed. On the other hand, Cage is so classified, when everybody knows he was experimental, which is diametrically opposed to avant garde. I don't see Varèse in there anywhere, either. The tree structure obviously needs work in this department, since being "avant garde" appears to exclude one from also being a "composer". As I have said already, however, these pigeonholes are a gross oversimplification, and I would advocate dumping the "avant garde" one in favour of just "composers".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Stravinsky

I think the article Stravinsky is ready to be nominated for GA. Do you agree? Hel-hama (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Before it goes to GA nomination, I think the six "citation needed" tags need to be dealt with (there are also some "full citation needed" tags in the references). This is the very first thing that a reviewer would call attention to, and it might be sufficient to provoke an instant rejection. Since this is so very obvious a thing that needs doing, it seems to me best to deal with it before bothering other editors.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Adele Katz citations in Counterpoint

Hi Jerome - it's been a while since I've been in touch. Hope all's well.

I was just doing some quick research for an article, and found what appeared to be a useful quotation in Counterpoint, cited to Challenge To Musical Tradition by Adele Katz; only I then discovered a tag you placed on it [1]. The thing is, I think there *is* a 2007 publication of this text, albeit one of those reprints which tend to turn up on amazon: see [2]. So I think whoever gave this reference in the first place did so in good faith, and indeed the ISBN number is the same on the amazon site (where, perhaps, the person citing the publication got a copy in the first place?).

I was just wondering whether the tag should perhaps be removed, and if there's perhaps a 'failsafe' way of citing such reprints. Alfietucker (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alfietucker, it's good to hear from you again. I have no doubt that the reference was placed in good faith. However, a check of the ISBN on the Library of Congress Worldcat yielded (and still yields) the message "No records matched your search". I have not run the usual check on the ISBN numbers, to see whether the check-digit agrees with the rest of the sequence, but erroneous ISBNs do exist, sometimes in the form of typographical errors in the book itself. I now see from BookFinder4U that this indeed belongs to a 2007 edition, from "Katz Press", which is said to be "using the original text and artwork". In other words, it is a photographic reprint. In such circumstances, where it is clear that no change has been made to the text (and there may be dozens or even hundreds of such unaltered reprintings), it is usual (perhaps almost falisafe) to cite the original edition, and mention reprint information as appropriate. This also avoids giving the mistaken impression that this "new concept of tonality" was being claimed as an innovation in 2007, rather than sixty-one years earlier. I do agree that the tag can now be removed (with the appropriate changes to the note). Thank you for calling this to my attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your response. As per your thoughts on this, I've removed the tag and made clear that it is the 1946 edition reprinted in 2007 (as I've discovered in Google Books). Hope that makes sense. Alfietucker (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that should be satisfactory. I'll take a look, and if necessary, adjust according to my understanding of bibliographical protocols. If I do make any changes to which you object, feel free to revert them! In the meantime, I should check that ISBN for validity, since LoC Worldcat doesn't seem to like it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I have verified that the given ISBN is valid—that is, the check digit is what it should be.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

pocket opera

Find Stockhausen, - thank you for your help with ensemble recherche, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You are more than welcome for the very small contributions I made to that article!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure to follow your writing on Stockhausen's works, so rarely on the Main page because of your exquisite referencing style. Stockhausen and Donnerstag will be featured for a little longer in Germany and Opera ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It is always gratifying to learn that one's writing is being enjoyed by others. I am a little puzzled by your phrase "exquisite referencing style", however, especially when coupled to the remark "so rarely on the Main page". Why should I have cause to edit material on the main page?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should speak German ;) DYK requires inline citations, you seem not to like them, right? Donnerstag aus Licht was visited 230 times that day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Bitte zögerst nicht, mir auf Deutsch zu schreiben, obwohl es scheint mir, daß dein Englisch ganz fließend ist—gewiß, besser als mein Deutsch. (Wahrscheinlich habe ich dies soeben als wahr erwiesen.) I believe you will find that all the articles I have written are stuffed with inline citations: I make a point of documenting every claim. (I might have thought your use of the phrase "exquisite referencing" was meant as a compliment to my thoroughness, if it were not for the word "style" immediately following.) Please do not confuse "inline citation" with "footnote"—those ugly blue numerals that deface so many articles on Wikipedia, and require the reader to continually jump back and forth between the text and references. My preference is for parenthetical referencing. I have never bothered nominating any of my work for the DYK feature, but if I were to do so, inline citations would be the last thing I would expect to cause any trouble. I am aware, however, that parenthetical referencing is not common in languages other than English. Consequently, when writing on other Wikipedias I try to conform to the style norms of the language in question.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as an "aside", recently (I think) Wikipedia changed its "jumping settings", so that to read a footnote you only have to place your cursor above one. It makes life a bit easier. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a step in the right direction. The next thing is to suppress those distracting blue numbers, though I can't see how to do that without also going to parenthetical referencing. It would be the right thing to do, however.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Direct quotations

Hi, Jerome Kohl. I've just seen the citequote templates you've placed on Serenade (Stravinsky), and I wanted to ask you something: I got those quotes from a music critic that claims those people wrote that once (not clear where). Would it be enough to reference the critic statements or should I find the original quote? Thank you very much. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearly an "original" citation of a quotation is preferable to a second-hand one (if such a distinction really can be made), but if this music critic is published in a reliable source, I don't see why there should be any problem with using it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

French 18th century musicologist

Hi, Hunting around the rubbish bin of declined articles for creation, I find Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Frederick Salvemini de Castillon. Any thoughts? Best, Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am barely even familiar with the name, as one of the earliest theorists of tonality. (My interest in the history of music theory falters somewhat as the middle of the 17th century is reached, and only revives with the onset of the 20th century.) I had no idea until now that there was such a thing as a forum where articles could be proposed for creation, but on the strength of this one example it cannot be of much use. If Fétis's, Biographie universelle is not sufficient evidence of notability, then I am at a loss as to what must be required. A warm letter of recommendation from the Pope, perhaps? On the other hand, there is no article on Salvemini de Castillon in New Grove, nor does a search of RILM turn up anything (several articles on Alexis de Castillon, and even one on a Jean-Baptiste de Castillon, who apparently copied a manuscript of guitar music in 1706 that contains pieces by Francesco Corbetta not known from any other source. Perhaps I should take a look at the entry in Fétis, which should at least give some idea of the degree of Castillon's notability in the mid-to-late 19th century.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be good - I thought he met our arguably rather generous standards of notability for long-dead scholars. I think it may be enough to turn up, & resubmit with support from the other of us - or demand an AFD. I very rarely look at AFC, but I guess it does save a lot of AFD time - I had to look at a good number before finding anything maybe worth saving caught in the grille. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

After a quick consultation of the 1867 edition of Fétis, it appears that the proposed article was nothing more than a somewhat mangled translation of Fétis. Perhaps the later edition cited changed the supposed date of birth of Castillon, however, which is given as "vers 1778", rather than 1747.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Worth pursuing, do you think, or not? Actually I see his dad, Giovanni Salvemini does have an article after all. I think I'll just add the content there, with a redirect. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the rather slim amount of information in Fétis, and the lack of interest from later writers, I would say that a redirect to the father's article is the best choice.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Lute or Oud

Dear Mr Kohl, I was wondering if you could settle an argument I have with another user, over this picture; I think it's a renaissance lute as opposed to an oud, based on the fact that the woman depicted plays using her fingers, not a plectrum, as well as the assumption that the oud was not widely known in Western Europe during the Renaissance. I am hoping your expertise will provide a definite answer to the above, otherwise please point me to someone you believe knows best. Best regards from a -far less competent, yet eager!- fellow musician from Greece --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no question about it: the instrument is a six-course Renaissance lute. This can be seen not only from the facts you mention, but also from many details of the instrument's construction (shape of the soundboard, formation of the pegbox, etc.), but most especially from the presence of frets on the fingerboard (and the position of the player's fingers, revealing a polyphonic or "chordal" style of playing). There is some evidence that frets may have once been used on the oud, but there is also a belief that the description of such frets in theoretical treatises is merely a convenient way of explaining the string-length proportions that produce particular intervals. In practice, the oud is characteristically fretless, and because of this not basically polyphonic. Besides, at a date as late as this picture (1510), why would an Italian artist want to put an exotic instrument like the oud into an otherwise perfectly ordinary domestic scene?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks and my true apologies for the delay; I had not realized your response to the issue in question. I shall pass your info to the appropriate discussion page. Once again thank you and greetings from Greece --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Editnotices used as cleanup tags

I notice you placed an editnotice on Le Grand Macabre. That's not exactly how editnotices work—they're designed to appear on top of the edit window when a user clicks an edit link, but be invisible in the article. They're supposed to exist only on a special subpage of an article, which is transcluded when rendering the edit page. Also, using the editnotice templates this way is probably in contravention of the no disclaimers guideline. I'm going to edit out the notice. TheFeds 07:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh. OK. I saw this particular editnotice at the top of the article Le marteau sans maître, where I thought its presence was obtrusive. It seemed more appropriate where I placed it, but if there is a better way of advising editors of this formatting style in the Le Grand Macabre article (where I have had to revert several attempts to change the established referencing style), then I leave it in your more capable hands. I see you have removed the tag from the Marteau article, as well. I hope this does not lead to a renewed outburst of misinformed edits.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple ways of alerting editors, though (pretty much by design) none are quite so prominent as the notices I'd removed. Those editnotices, when inserted into a subpage of the article called \Editnotice, will display their message above the edit box (i.e. when you click the "Edit" button on a page, the message will appear above the space you're writing in). But to create that subpage, you need an administrator's assistance. The easy way to avoid that hassle is to describe the issue in a section on the talk page, or even create a discreet {{tmbox}} instance that gets the message across.

(And of course, any notice is only effective as long as there's a consensus to keep it, or at least as long as apathy over the issue is preventing anyone from making wholesale changes. If a consensus builds that the referencing style should be changed, then the editnotice or tmbox won't block that process.) TheFeds 08:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I've only been editing here on Wikipedia for about six years, so I'm still learning about such subtleties. Editnotice subpages are completely new to me and it does, as you imply, sound like being more trouble than it is worth. The {{tl|tmbox}} is also something of which I had not previously heard, but the adjective "discreet" attached to it does not sound encouraging. In my experience, newbie editors who see "obvious" things to change do not notice even blunt edit notices written in full caps and repeated at intervals throughout an article (e.g., in this article), let alone "discreet" reminders.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Unusually detailed picture of an aulos (well, if you click to see it enlarged)

Thanks for correcting that caption at Music of ancient Rome! I was ignorant of the difference.

I too find that a bizarre citation system. I hope to contribute some text to this article some day, but really wouldn't know how to use those notes. If you turn them into something more conventional, you will have at least one editor cheering you on. Best wishes, Cynwolfe (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh—another question. Do you know why cymbala redirects to psaltery? The word cymbala doesn't appear on the page, and it's hard to see how they would be so closely related. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No probs. Instrumental terminology in general, but of percussion instruments in particular is problematic when it comes to the ancient world. What we think of today as cymbals are a long way from the much thicker, smaller-diameter metal instruments of ancient Rome, and the Greek kymbala were apparently rather larger than their Roman counterparts. Of course, since we are talking of a period stretching over several hundred years, there is lots of room for change over time, as well as geographical differences. Cymbala probably redirects to "psaltery" because, over the course of history, the term (along with the related crotale) was applied to a succession of different instruments, including castanets, bells, and psalteries (in part because of confusion caused by Biblical passages employing the terms). It really ought to have a disambiguation page.

Mildehall Treasure, Roman Britain

As for that citation system, I have not come across even one other article that uses it (though I imagine there must be some, somewhere), and I cannot think why anyone would want to use it since it effectively requires manually numbering all the notes in the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yikes.

Since you're knowledgable about ancient instruments, and I know only a smidgeon, this may not be as revelatory to you as to me, but I just came across this painting from Roman-era Egypt and was surprised to see what looked like keys on the aulos, or perhaps raised finger holes. I don't recall seeing that before in representations of the aulos. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A startling image, to be sure, and there can be no doubt about the identity of the double aulos. I can't recall ever having seen such a thing before, but it is important to keep in mind that artists do not always confine themselves to representing what they actually see. One alternative that comes to mind in this case is that those odd triangular shapes may represent sounds escaping from the finger-holes, or even (considering that this is a funerary image) the spiritus (breath = soul) of the player escaping through the instrument. Thanks for calling my attention to this very interesting example.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Those are both sound explanations (pardon the pun) for the shapes coming from the finger holes, and consonant (sorry, can't stop) with various theoretical approaches to the soul, wind, sound, and so on. Lo and behold, I think I've discovered another one, not visible till you click to the jpg itself. (I was actually looking at something else in the image.) Cynwolfe (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you will reap your reward in heaven (or possibly somewhere else) for the puns. Apart from that, thanks for the additional image, which is also very interesting. I came across a brief reference the other day, in the Zurna article, to a Turkmen tradition that "Adam, who was moulded from clay, had no soul. It is said that it was only due to the melodious tuiduk-playing Archangel Gabriel could breathe life into Adam". Unfortunately, there is no source cited for this charming story, but the dili tuiduk is an at least distant relative of the aulos.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Computer & electronic categories & templates

Per Wikipedia:Avoid template creep, I'm just trying to keep the number of templates per page down. For instance Illiac Suite could have both {{Computer music}} and {{Electronic music}} on it, but with both expanded the templates are longer than the article. Note that Category:Computer music is a subcategory of Category:Electronic music, so that technically being computer music does make something electronic music. But, the same way a library doesn't throw all books into the fiction section in a jumble, hopefully we can more specifically categorize it. Hyacinth (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I can see that. The lliac Suite is a particularly good example. I had put it into the template because I found it in the "Category:Electronic music". I had forgotten that it is actually a composition for string quartet, composed by a computer. I have in the meantime removed it from the Electronic music category. The real issue here is: what are the criteria for inclusion or exclusion? I find it ludicrous to exclude Iannis Xenakis from the list of "people" (not merely "composers", by the way, since Werner Meyer-Eppler is rightly included) who are important to electronic music, simply on the grounds that he, like Hiller and Issacson, were also involved in algorithmic composition using computers. Xenakis created a number of important electronic works (if you are willing to concede musique concrète is a category of electronic music), which had nothing at all to do with computers (Concret PH, Analogique A–B, and Bohor, for example). There is also a distinction to be made , I think, between music composed by (or with the aid of) computers, and music made with sounds generated or transformed electronically—which may involve computers or not. I completely agree with the template creep issue. I would just like to have some clear ground rules by which to navigate.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Xenakis

Though I am guilty as well ("yes it should"), edit summaries are inappropriate places for comments and discussion, especially those which do not assume good faith. I would compare my removal of "electronic music" from the Xenakis article to the removal of the supercategory Category:Electronic music from Illiac Suite with bothering to find the relevant subcategory. Hyacinth (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Does the "Electronic music" category have "Algorithmic composition" as a subcategory? If so, I apologize for deleting it from the Illiac Suite article. To take this to an extreme, brain activity may be regarded as electric activity, but this does not justify including all human compositional activity as "electronic music", does it? I do think that comments are not merely appropriate, but obligatory in edit summaries. Discussion is another question—marginal at best, I agree. We don't talk enough, and edit-summary too much. Please keep in touch.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Mario Davidovsky

Hello. You, without discussion, deleted the info box I put into Mario Davidovsky citing some rule of the composers project. Hadn't heard that one before and didn't know about "permission" discussion required or superimposed by your project. For example, Wendy Carlos has an info box -- performer and composer. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

My deletion of the infobox was made in order to prompt the discussion to obtain consensus requested by the composers project. I'm sorry that you did not know about this project, or of their reasons for opposition to infoboxes on composer articles, for which reason my edit must have seemed unduly abrupt. While it is true that a few composer article do have infoboxes, and that by the usual Wikipedia principles of established usage those infoboxes are difficult or even impossible to remove, the fact remains that the project really does insist that all the editors active on an article be consulted before an infobox is added. If you have not already done so, please read the project's position statement here. If after having done so you feel you have a good argument for adding an infobox to the Davidovsky article, then please start a discussion on that article's Talk page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jerome. It's clear now. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Flags

I'd like to discuss the flags matter in 1943 in music. They may be distracting, but I don't think they are pointless at all. They show the reader whether the work was composed in a democracy, in a communist or fascist state, under occupation, in exile or abroad, establishing a context for it. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There are two points I would like to make in response. First and most important is that these flags only show the reader the things you mention if the reader recognizes all of the flags in question. I would submit that the vast majority of readers see only brightly coloured splotches, except perhaps for the flag of their own country. When these splotches occur at the start of an entry in a list, they displace what should be the key element—in this case, the surname of the composer. As for establishing a context such as whether a work was composed in exile or abroad, this requires far more knowledge of the reader, and a more complex interpretation. For example, an American flag on Bartók's Concerto for Orchestra might tell you the work was composed in that country, but putting the same flag on Bartók's name suggests he was born there, or was a naturalized citizen of that country. The second point is that there are many hundreds of year-in-music lists, none of which have nationality flags in use for compositions listed in the "classical music" section. If 1943 is to have them, then all the others should as well, and this really ought to require some editorial discussion and consensus before going ahead. I think the correct forum for such a discussion would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Nono

Thank you for the Nono cantata! I added it it to Cantata#Twentieth century and beyond but didn't know where best, very rich paragraphs ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. To be honest, I was astonished that no one had yet written an article on a work that has been analysed in print more often than almost any other piece composed since 1950 and, in addition, has aroused so much controversy because of its strong political motives. For once, writing a "Reception" section was actually easier than any other part of the article (and it is by no means finished yet).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

For your consideration

As a significant contributor to the Noise music article, this discussion may or may not interest you. I would be interested to hear what opinions you have, if any, on the question of authorship as it relates to developing content on wikipedia. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Request of interposition

Dear colleague, may I ask you to keep an eye on much debated Enharmonic keyboard article. The interventions of a user Commator (who is known here for his rude manners and was blocked in the Russian Wikipedia project several times) are very resolute with a trend to change sense of my edits to just the opposite. Olorulus (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 20th-century classical music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Johnston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Pyknon

Thank you for working at Pycnon. In any case, native speaker's editing will be better than those of a foreigner like me. Please check my notes concerning your recent edits at [3]. Olorulus (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I took far too long in preparing the article that you asked me to write. You did well to start the article without me but, as you may have guessed, I didn't add all that material without considerable prior work. I look forward to reading your comments.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help with this article. Now it looks 'professionally' smooth due to your editorial interventions. It would be very nice of you if you could also go deep into (tantalizing and at the same time poignant) Enharmonic keyboard. Olorulus (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I have put the Enharmonic Keyboard article on my watchlist, but so far I have not been "actively" editing it. I shall now take a closer look at it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please check my notes on a talk page though to check my objections as to the current state of the article. Olorulus (talk)

Thanks for mentioning this. I might not have looked there otherwise.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wind quintets

You have edited the article Wind quintet in the past.

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Wind quintet over the criteria for inclusion of artists in the "Prominent wind quintets" section, where the vast majority of entries are WP:Redlinks. The proposal is that listed quintets should either have their own Wikipedia article or should have a link to a reliable source (not the quintets own PR, but an external source) to show that they are notable.

Please add your opinion here. - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have, as stated in Talk:Wind quintet, notified all the editors who have edited Wind quintet 5 or more times (including you).

I think we just have to sit and wait now. - Arjayay (talk)

I shall add my opinion at the official location, though you already know what it is, I think. That "article" has been mainly a collection of indiscriminate lists for far too long. I'm ashamed to say that I am partly responsible, in that I did not myself raise the issue long ago.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As you may have noticed User:SamuelTheGhost has done some tidying, and agreed to the proposal, albeit with some good questions, since I notified him this morning. - Arjayay (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I see that the "official location" is where I had already voiced my opinion. It would be nice to have one or two more editors chime it but, as you said, some editors contribute only on the weekend, so we may see some further comments in the next day or two.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Post–World War II

Thanks for the explanation---I didn't know that! Rothorpe (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the very select circle of editors who do know this, and can now operate on such a refined level! It only took me sixteen years with the Chicago Manual of Style (and other style sheets) as daily reading to acquire these secrets, but I am pleased to share them whenever the opportunity arises!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I am honoured. Rothorpe (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You certainly are! It is a shame there is no service medal for members of this élite club to display on their user pages. Perhaps one day there will be.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing II

You're welcome! You must be some kind of psychic; after adding the link, I went to work on creating the Quatre études de rythme article. I was literally within 5 minutes of hitting "save page" on my own minimalist translation of the French article when I noticed, on the French page, that there was now an English article listed on the left. And what an article! Now I'm tempted to update the French version to include some of your material, unless you are already in process of doing so. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hah! If I had followed my original impulse, I would have beaten you to it by several days, rather than minutes! I started by thinking I would translate the French version, but it was so thin (and there is that unreferenced quotation from Boulez) that I decided I could do better on my own. Consequently, it took a little longer. Please feel free to translate to the French site. I could do this myself, but I have got a lot of other things to attend to—including finishing the Quatre études article, which still needs more about "Île de feu II" (the permutation scheme of which is almost as important an influence on early serialism as "Mode de valeurs" was). This should not get in the way of doing a translation, since it will all be added on at the end. How are you with Italian? The Italian Wikipedia article appears to be a simple translation of the French version. Met hartelijke groet,—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Je voudrais traduire au français et au italien quand j'ai le temps, mais maintenant j'ai beaucoup d'autres choses à faire aussi. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Non c'è fretta. Se si decide di fare una traduzione, ma solo dopo tre o quattro settimane, si prega me avvisare. Forse io stesso avrebbe cominciato una traduzione.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Grazie. Si dirò quando è pronta la mia traduzione in italiano. Non sarà difficile. Dopo tutto, l'italiano è la lingua della musica. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Anche per la musica francese! Così divertente!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Maderna discography

Thanks for putting up the Wergo record dates, that start with the Xenakis. From the outset, I chose to disentangle the composers from the "sampler" CD's, so it can be clear what pieces from which composers Maderna exactly recorded/conducted with ommission of those pieces that others performed (i.c. Travis). So I hope you don't mind that I left the Kontonski on the list and deleted the rest. The missing data from the other listed pieces will sooner or later all follow, btw. AlterBerg (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)AlterBergAlterBerg (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Wergo CDs, samplers or otherwise. All of my experience with those particular recordings are from the Time/Mainstream LPs on which they were originally issued. The only concern I have with omitting the non-Maderna items from those listings (which I have not yet looked at) is that they should in some way indicate that "other material" is included. Otherwise readers are bound to wonder why Maderna would choose tempos so slow that it takes three CDs to contain a performance of just one short piece by Kotoński (whose name I appear to have misspelled).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Undo

What's the deal with the time signature undo?

Guitarspecs (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, you are new to Wikipedia, so le me explain a few basics. First, on Talk pages (like this one), always put new comments at the bottom of the page. Second, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There you will learn that sources are required for every claim likely to be challenged on Wikipedia. Third, please read the editorial instructions liberally supplied (at the beginning of the list, and the beginning of every major section) in the Unusual time signatures list, concerning the requirement for reliable sources. Fourth, please notice that the list in question is subdivided into sections according to the numeral in the top of the meter signatures; the last section is for complex mixtures of time signatures. Fifth, please notice that there is a redirect at 5/8, 5/4 and at 7/8, 7/4 to separate articles on Quintuple meter and Septuple meter. At the former, you will find a generous discussion of Take Five, complete with the requisite citations. Your 7/8 example, on the other hand, will require a reliable source before it can be added to the already over-long list in the Septuple meter article. It is not really very complicated, but the requirements for citations may take a little getting used to. Those articles I mentioned will explain why they are necessary. Please don't be discouraged, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you have fun editing here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for fixing the references on Frank Bridge. One of the great things about Wikipedia: do it wrong, and someone will come along and show you how to do it right. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I've gotten used to receiving custard pies for changing reference formats, but this is much nicer (and doesn't automatically incur a dry-cleaning bill). Thanks for the thanks!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1931 in music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to George Dyson, John Ireland, John Vincent and Alfred Hill

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1931 in music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Josef Suk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Tritone

Hi Jerome, how do you like my recent edits? Recently, you posted in the talk page a sentence which I cannot fully understand:

"Carefully reading over the lede paragraphs, I have to admit they make my brain hurt. In addition, there is at least one statement that is flat wrong: a diatonic scale may well be said to contain only one tritone, but it is not necessarily an augmented fourth—it depends on which of the two notes you start from (e.g., in a C-major scale F up to B is an augmented fourth, but B up to F is a diminished fifth)."

Is there a diatonic scale in which the (ascending) d5 B up to F (for instance B₃-F₄) can be decomposed into three whole tones?

The descending interval B down to F (for instance B₄-F₃) is a descending A4, as it encompasses 4 notes, like its ascending version F up to B (for instance F₃-B₄). Paolo.dL (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Paolo. I have been trying not to read the edits to the article on the tritone, because in such cases (when the edits are coming fast and furious) it is fruitless to make judgments until the dust has settled. In order to answer your question, it is necessary to look at the article as it appeared on 9 November (a month ago now, and a month is a long time on Wikipedia). At that time, the lede paragraph contained this sentence: "In a diatonic scale there is only one tritone, classified as an augmented fourth". The comma could be the crucial thing, but it is a poorly written sentence in any case, because it had not been made clear whether the word "tritone" can apply only to the augmented fourth, or to both it and the diminished fifth. According to the former definition, yes, there is only on tritone in a diatonic scale, and it is an augmented fourth. However, most people today (I am an exception, since I actually exist in many different times, simultaneously ;-) would be mystified by this statement, since they see no difference between an augmented fourth and a diminished fifth, and so there are obviously two tritones in every diatonic scale. Now that I have (cautiously) peeked at the revision, I see that this problem has been fixed.

Whether or not a diminished fifth can be "decomposed" into three whole tones depends entirely on your theoretical framework. In "twelve-tone thinking" (nothing at all to do with Schoenberg's compositional technique), a span of six semitones is equivalent to three whole tones, and so your average jazz pianist will say, "of course, a diminished fifth contains three whole tones". But in the kind of diatonic thinking that pervaded musical logic until about the middle of the 19th century, the concept of "interval species" (which I think is what you really mean when you use the word "decompose") still was in force, even if not very strongly after the 16th century. Within that framework, "tri" means "three" and "tone" means a "whole tone", and if a diatonic segment does not actually have three whole-tone steps in it, the interval cannot be described as a "tritone". Therefore, the interval containing the notes (for example) D–E♭–F–G–A♭ has got semitone-tone-tone-semitone, and not tone-tone-tone, and therefore must be called something else: "diminished fifth", "semidiapente", or something similar. This is a fine point, however, and is exactly the kind of thing that makes a simple concept hard to understand for the beginner, who has no inkling that semitones may come in different sizes and therefore cannot understand that the two semitones in my example, depending on the tuning system being used, may add up to more or less than each of the whole tones in the middle, therefore making a diminished fifth either larger or smaller than an augmented fourth.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. However, there's something I cannot understand yet. As far as I know, even when we are in a diatonic context there's no way to divide a d5 into three whole tones. This is because, as far as I know:

1. a whole tone is not defined as "any interval spanning two semitones". It is defined as a major second, i.e a second spanning two semitones. This means that a diminished third is not a whole tone.
2. Also, we know that the composition of three seconds makes a fourth, not a fifth. So, there's no way to build a (diminished) fifth from three (major) seconds.

This means that the strict definition "a tritone is an interval composed of three whole tones" always implies, even in a chromatic context, that d5s are not tritones. Which implies that the broad definition "a tritone is any interval spanning six semitones" is never equivalent, not even in a chromatic context, to the above-mentioned strict definition. Do you agree? Is there something I am missing?

Paolo.dL (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you are missing anything. All I am trying to say is that we (by which I mean "all readers except you and me") are so thoroughly accustomed to thinking in terms of a 12-tone piano keyboard that when we are given the notes D and A♭, as in my example above, we imagine our fingers touching one white key and one black key at a span of six semitones, and whether that black key is "really" A♭ or G♯ is somehow irrelevant. Further, even supposing we are aware of the difference, and are thinking of A♭, we do not flinch at the thought that some intervening scale notes might be, for example, E, F, and G♭, with an interval pattern of tone-semitone-semitone-tone—a pattern that is not, from a strict diatonic point of view, a diminished fifth at all, since a diminished fifth (according to a "strict diatonic interpretation" = "diatonic interval species") must have the semitones at the bottom and top of the pattern. In fact, this might just as well be read as D–E–E♯–F♯–G♯, which is a proper tritone (augmented fourth) with a chromatic filler-tone (the E♯). This is what I meant by "twelve-tone thinking", an expression that appears in English music theory a decade or so before Schoenberg's twelve-tone technique. We are so thoroughly saturated in this kind of thinking that "diatonic" is a concept that we must make an effort to recall and apply. I think we may take it for granted that the average Wikipedia reader will have difficulty understanding why A♭ and G♯ are not the same note, and therefore that there is any difference at all between a diminished fifth and an augmented fourth. For this reason we must be very careful in our explanation of these matters which are, in fact, completely "out of date", and yet still inherent to the terminology universally employed in music theory.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Your advice is always useful. Paolo.dL (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

History of music theory

Major thirds tuning had the fox paws confusing A♭ and G♯, which remains in an image (whose caption notes the correction).

Please recommend a "history of Western music for music theorists" or a "history of music theory" (preferably a rational reconstruction by a careful student of Charles Sanders Peirce, Alasdair MacIntyre, or Imre Lakatos).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Erm, OK. This is the first I've heard of this article, but it looks interesting. Thanks for calling it to my attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A casual observation made here

Greetings Jerome Kohl. You said (not literally) that if I wrote {{:de:My third grandmother}} I would get a fake bluelink that behaves like an honest one when I float the cursor over it. I tried and it doesn't work for me. Watch. This is what I get: {{:de:My third grandmother}}. Have I misunderstood what you were saying? Lest you wonder, I'm not asking in order to perfect my fake bluelinking skills but to try and understand one more thing about the software. Cheers. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 16:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(watching) are you sure that you don't mean [[:de:My third grandmother]], a de:My third grandmother blue link although there's no article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If I accidentally used braces instead of square brackets, that would explain the discrepancy. I meant (as Gerda says) double square brackets. That markup indeed produces a false bluelink, as Gerda also illustrates.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Intrigued

Hello Jerome Kohl, is there some reason why you opposed the inclusion of an infobox (and promoted the inclusion of a warning discouraging it) in the article Harry Partch, but are currently tolerating the opposite state of affairs? Thanks in advance for replying. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Just biding my time, and hoping not to seem like the lone individual opposing the infobox. I haven't seen any sign of a discussion, let alone evidence of consensus.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

At present, it looks more like I am the lone individual trying one, if only to see what it might look like ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

About Parable of the Ten Virgins#Music and more

First of all, Happy Holidays from "down under" Doctor Professor JK. That said, from what I can see, Emily Freeman Brown (still a red-link) appears to be an eminent American conductor, and a composer of amongst other things an oratorio based on that parable. Could you possibly have a little look into this? Thank you!--Shirt58 (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A little less of the "Professor", if you don't mind. I have done a quick check on Emily Freeman[-]Brown and, from what I have found, it might be an uphill battle to justify a Wikipedia article on notability grounds. She is certainly well-established in the academy, and there are any number of websites promoting recordings and the like, but no article in the New Grove or similar reference works. If there are suitable third-party references, my quick search did not turn them up. If you believe she is important enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, you are welcome to try and find the necessary sources to support it, but I don't think I shall be spending my own time on this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't mind "Professor". Y'all can call me "Professor" anytime you please. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 18:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Advice taken and very much appreciated. Thank you indeed for your research and your reply to my question, Doctor Professor, er, ahem, Jeckers, old bean.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject notes in articles

Pls see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikiproject notes in articles - The issues may be much bigger then just the note on the pages - However I believe the viability of the note its self is what we should talk about at this time.Moxy (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent Septuple Meter stuff

Hi there! Thanks in general for your watchful eye on Septuple meter. As I look into the topic I'm starting to realize that there are more septuple meter songs than can realistically be listed, but obviously the lists are still useful to people or there wouldn't constantly be attempts to add to them.

Anyway you recently reverted an addition titled "Deduction (also called Speculation or Reasoning)" which had a source. The source did not mention "Deduction" but referred to the same song as "Speculation", and mentioned that the song was in 7/4 with a 3/4 bridge.

You also changed a description of "Meetings Along the Edge" in an attempt to make it match the description from the cited source. However, the description you inserted, "the chamber orchestra develops the theme in 4/8-6/8-7/8", is from the first track of the album. The proper section from the track cited is "1) a "Middle Eastern" sounding Shankar theme in 7; 2) a seconf theme also by Ravi and also in 7 but of a somewhat different lenght; 3) A Glass theme in 4." This is a bit long so I think the original wording is better.

Try and be more careful, specifically when removing someone's addition since that can be pretty discouraging.

Dranorter (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"More septuple meter songs than can realistically be listed", perhaps, but it gets much worse when "partly in septuple meter" is included. Realistically, the easiest way of dealing with this would be to list all the music composed since about 1900, and then start deleting the few pieces that fail to display at least one 7/4 or 7/8 bar, or use septuple patterns regardless of the notation. Thanks goodness for the requirement that a source be provided for every addition. Despite the fact that some musical circles still find 3/4 time unusual, it is a very insular view.

As for "Deduction", there was no actual evidence presented that it is known under other titles, and especially no such evidence in the cited source. Had it been listed under the correct title in the first place, I would not have failed to find it in the source. As for "Meeting Along the Edge", I did an electronic search of the text in the supplied source for "7/8", "7/4", "septuple", and "seven", which turned up only the citation about the chamber orchestra. I was disappointed and a little surprise, since septuple meter is quite common in Shankar's primary milieu of Indian Classical Music. I shall look again, but I think you can see that I was in fact quite careful in checking your sources. Perhaps not careful enough, for which I apologize.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The song can be found elsewhere titled "Deduction", and this source lists that as the US name, but the actual name of the track is in Japanese and different people handle it differently. Regarding Meetings Along the Edge, the problem is that the official site just says "7" in the track description, which you've probably noticed.

The division between being in septuple meter and being partially so is also a bit blurry, since having a brief intro or bridge in 4/4 probably shouldn't disqualify a piece. But anyway there are lots of people who want or expect a definitive list on Wikipedia; and maybe for pieces entirely or nearly entirely in septuple time that's not wholly impossible.

Thanks again and good talking with you. I sure do admire your level of contribution to Wikipedia.

Dranorter (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It would of course be possible to list that song as "Deduction", with cross-referencing to alternative titles, provided that a source is provided for this, as well as for the septuple meter. However, the simplest solution is the one I have adopted. The alternative names are not the important part. The only problem with the identification of "Meetings along the Edge" was that I didn't think to search for an isolated "7"! There is absolutely no reason to have a time signature of 7/4, 7/8, 7/256 or even 7/13 to identify a piece of music as being in septuple meter. Failing ever to write it down does not disqualify a piece, so long as we have got a reliable source that says it is "septuple", "in 7", or something equivalent. Thirdly, indeed a brief passage in a contrasting meter should not matter. In fact, there is one piece, now moved to the main text of the article that has one or two bars out of 300 or so that are not in 7/8 time. Much more problematic would be the inclusion of a half-hour symphonic poem (or something) with over 1,000 bars of nothing but 4/4 time, and a single insertion of 7/8. At this point I am more concerned about this "definitive list" attitude, which is in direct conflict with Wikipedia:Avoid trivia articles. With a very small amount of effort, I could add a thousand or so examples of pieces containing a few bars of septuple meter. On the other hand, no one yet has begun a definitive list of all pieces of music in 4/4 time. What do you suppose the reaction might be to that?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the trivia guidelines are that clear on this topic. Those are predominantly against unorganized information, and lists of facts containing wildly varying content. The closest thing I know of is WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory, guideline 7. Inasmuch as septuple meter is commonplace enough to no longer be a "culturally significant phenomenon", it does not need a list. However, I think it's still generally a culturally significant phenomenon, not an example of overcategorization. To my mind the issue is more that not every song is notable. For some reason my gut instinct is this: if an artist is notable, a song predominantly in 7 by them is sufficiently notable. But obviously as you say that wouldn't work for 4/4.

Dranorter (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

How about 2/4, then? Maybe 3/4? Would you believe 6/8?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Enharmonic keyboard

I don't have another competent person here on the English Wikipedia list whom I can ask for collaboration. And I really need help of an experienced person (and of a colleague) like you. Despite your thoughtful notes on talk page of the dicussed article, my version of the article has been ruthlessy dumped by a user Commator without a single discussion remark. My references to recognized music dictionaries have been removed from a definition and replaced with citations from reviews of unknown significance. Is that called 'consensus'? Please help. Olorulus (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course not; it's a violation of WP:RS. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

@Olorulus: I'm sorry for falling down on the job. I have kept that article on my Watchlist, but I hadn't noticed the new problems. I'll try to keep a closer watch in future.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that I have reviewed the recent edit history of the "Enharmonic keyboard" article, I think I see the edit to which you are referring. It was made nearly two months ago (Commator's more recent edits have had nothing to do with the text—only the restoration of removed images, and I see no problems with those, as things currently stand at least), and concerned the replacement of a citation to the Harvard Dictionary of Music with a similar description taken from Jerkert's review of Barbieri's book. I would hardly call the Svensk Tidskrift för Musikforskning a "review of unknown significance", but I have to agree that characterizing the Harvard Dictionary entry as creating an "imbalance" is difficult to accept.On the other hand, I'm not at all sure I understand Commator's edit summary: "Liquidation of deliberate imbalance created by removing a well-substantiated point of view". That sounds like it could be assertion of a minority opinion over the orthodox view, and indeed this would be a violation of WP:RS. I note that the Harvard reference was added in response to a "Citation needed" tag, which seemed like a responsible action. I am inclined to restore the Harvard Dictionary citation and place a query on the Talk page of that article for clarification.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Colleague, I'm pretty sure, you know, how reviews are written. Yes, a review to Barbieri's book (actually any review) is an encyclopedic source of unknown significance. The whole story is simple. In 2002 there was an article by Rasch (English-speaking scholar from Netherlands) who attempted to fix the term 'enharmonic keyboard'. Barbieri shared this term in his collection of articles dated 2008 (almost all of them have been published earlier, mainly in 1980s, in Italian, originally -- without any notice of 'enharmonic keyboard'). But this all is just a scholar discussion, an issue of recent polemics. My point is honest and quite lucid: WP should not support Barbieri's (or anyone's) side, all the more, with the positive reviews of 'interested party' (Rasch writes a positive review of a book, which supports his view, Commator cites this review as a 'source', don't you find it funny?). Olorulus (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you drop me your e-mail (mine is olorulusATmail.ru), I will gladly send you a scan of the above mentioned Rasch's 'conceptual' article of 2002 which gave rise to the whole story (by the way, my reference to exact pages of exactly this article in the WP article 'Enharmonic keyboard' has been suppressed by a user Commator twice in a row, so I don't have enough fun to add this reference infinitely). Olorulus (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought the cited review was by Jerkert, which does not quote Barbieri on the subject of what an enharmonic keyboard is supposed to be but rather gives the reviewer's own definition. Nevertheless, I agree that a standard dictionary is a better source, and I imagine that Jerkert is just paraphrasing such a definition anyway, so it is better to go to the Urquell. What is more, I believe that the New Grove also has an article on the enharmonic keyboard (probably by Mark Linley, but I will have to look it up), which should be substantially in agreement with the Harvard Dictionary.

Yes, I do know how reviews are written, though I think you meant to say "how reviews are often written", since what you are implying is not universally the case. In any event, what we should be trying to do here is to maintain a neutral point of view, as far as it is possible. If any editor is trying to promote a particular slant (and to be honest, I am not seeing what slant Commator is trying to promote with the definition of "enharmonic keyboard"), then of course that must be corrected. The easiest way of pursuing this course is to use standard references rather than less standard ones.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you look more attentively at the definitive part of the article, you will see that Commator uses here citations of 2 reviewers of Barbieri's book namely Rasch (which he abbreviates as Rasch, 2009) and Jerkert (which he abbreviates as Jerkert, 2010). There is another review of the (famous) Mark Lindley which Commator omits because it's not so laudatory but rather restrained and ironic (therefore it was omitted).

As for a 'particular slant' of Commator, it is to advertise Barbieri's book and to develop Rasch's concept of 'enharmonic music' (supported by Barbieri) using WP as a tribune. Look, e.g., more attentively how a user composes hyperlink to the words 'enharmonic music' which he inserted in the article (I think, quite deliberately) - one hyperlink leads to 'enharmonic' (and has nothing to do with enharmonic genus), another leads to 'music' (which in this context is not necessary at all). What is 'enharmonic music', we do not know (there was no such term in the late Renaissance, neither Renaissance instruments have ever been named by their authors 'enharmonic'). For me, it seems to be a new term derived by Rasch from... the quantity of keys on some (in fact, very marginal and rare) historic keyboards. I wonder, if WP should support and promote original concepts like this? Olorulus (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have taken a long, hard look at the edit history of this article from the very beginning on 24 October 2005, and in particular to the epic battle between yourself and Commator that erupted in early October 2012 and, thankfully, quieted down in time for the Christmas holidays. There were a lot of intemperate remarks and unjustified reversions, which neither of you should be proud of. Within this cloud of strife, I can see that there are some important differences of opinion, but the first thing has got to be to sort out the article according to Wikipedia guidelines. Amongst other things, the lede section should be nothing but a summary of the main points discussed in the body of the article itself. If it does this, it should not require any inline references at all. Second, the main body of the article should not begin with an announcement of widespread disagreement, but with a definition of the subject in as plain and uncontroversial a way as can be managed. (This is where those reliable sources, like the Harvard Dictionary or the New Grove should be cited.) Then (and only then) should any controversy be introduced. The differences of opinion should be clearly stated, and the arguments for each side should be briefly summarized, and documented. As Wikipedia editors, it is not our business to judge whether Rasch or Barbieri or anybody else is right or wrong but, if they are in conflict with each other or with the usual authorities, then we should explain these differences to readers as cogently as possible.

You may not be aware of this, but in amongst all the clatter and dust there is a conflict over referencing formats. This only adds to the general confusion, but fortunately can be sorted out separately, and with clearer Wikipedia guidelines than for the other issues. I have not yet determined what the first-established format for this article was but, according to WP:CITEVAR, it should be restored, until and unless consensus is obtained that it should be changed to something else. This includes replacement of manually formatted citations with templates, if adding those templates produced a change in format.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I should take the bulk of my comments over to Talk:Enharmonic keyboard, and that is precisely what I propose doing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No objection. The only thing I wanted you to do (since 4 months ago, see above), is to format the article according to WP rules, that's why I asked for your competent help. Olorulus (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Very good. I think you will agree that there is a little more to it than merely "formatting", but as you can see I have chosen trying to shape it according to Wikipedia guidelines as the fundamental principle.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do it (re-shaping article according to... etc.). If a further discussion would be necessary (of course, on a Talk page of the discussed article, not here), for me it is just normal practice. We both seem to adhere to the principle of 'consensus'. But unfortunately only my (and your) remarks are on there, no single remark of an alternate editor. Audiatur et altera pars, doesn't it? Olorulus (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Passepied

Hallo Jerome Kohl!!! Thank you very much for bringing the "passepied" entry to a well documented entity.

Yesterday night I was suddenly interested in the passepied because the Goldberg Variation number 4 which I was at the moment playing (with two eight note upbeats every measure). I have consulted the wiki and I have found a very poor entry. I could not edit some mistakes myself because I do speak english but very bad (as you can see).

Now you have made a perfect and well documented wiki-entry for that dance. Congratulations.

(I have written in the history of the article one important example for the 3/4). Maybe you do not have the time, and I have the "english problem", but the interesting point remains that somewhere in Brittany it was developed a dance (called "passepied" by Noël du Fail in 1548) which was later referred as the famous "Branle" of Brittany (Rabelais, for example). And the thing is that this dance doesn't have anything in common with the passepied which we know. It is a fast duple-metre dance (and without the characteristic upbeats and hemiolas) from which we have an example in M. Praetorius, Terpsichore (1616). Something happened which change the dance completely for its insertion in the Louis XIV court. I find that particularly interesting because in the "passepied" example from Debussy it is common to make the observation that his piano piece from the passepied has only the name (Debussy wrote before in his manuscript "pavanne" and then he changed the title). I prefer to imagine that Debussy was not thinking in Bach and Händel but rather in the old "Branle-passepied" (he knew what he was doing) and therefore the 4/4 and the other characteristics.

Very nice your reference to Stravinsky Symphony in C! (but in this case it is more like a "flirt" in the middle of an abstract elaboration of a "scherzo") Thank you very much again for your editing of the article! Pedro Alcalde 20:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC) (I never have used this pages and I do not have the smallest idea how this signature will present itself to you: in any case my name is Pedro Alcalde, and I am very glad to have the opportunity of speaking to you!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimidalv vokoban (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I should have done something about the passepied article months ago (it has been on my Watchlist for a very long time), so I must thank you for finally removing that uncited claim dating back to 2008. It was your edit that brought the article back to my attention! It still needs some work, but I am glad that you find it substantially improved. The problem of the connection (if any) between the branle-passepied of the 16th century and the Baroque passepied probably cannot be solved (the New Grove article by Little says it is completely inexplicable), but there is the fact that the phrases of that particular type of branle are three bars long, and this might have evolved in a process of acceleration into a three-beat bar. The problem with this hypothesis is that one would expect to find examples of a transitional form, and there are none that I know of. On Wikipedia, there is the added burden of finding reliable sources that will make such a risky speculation. I agree that Debussy was certainly aware of the 16th-century dance, and this must also have been the case for Stravinsky who, after all, writes a suite of branles for part 3 of Agon (even if there is no branle passepied as such).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hollman's right hand

Heh, a slight case of overkill, methinks. I doubt that anyone, anywhere, would think that Hollmann's non-functioning right hand had its premiere in Prague in 1928 and gained considerable acclaim in the musical world. Carry on.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry, I always say. As it happens, I did read it that way, and it gave me quite a turn!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. What would the premiere of a hand look like? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't help thinking about that classic horror story (now what was the title?) about the severed hand with a mind of its own, that went creeping about on its fingertips in the dark.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Moment Form, Stockhausen 1963a quotation: translator?

Hi Jerome, I was just going over the Moment Form article. The huge quotation from Stockhausen 1963a is vital, thank you for adding it to the page. However, do you know who translated that? Was it you? I presume Texte zur Musik is in German, so the discrepancy piqued by curiosity. Phembree (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)